Archive for the ‘Nationalism’ Category

The Book and the Cover

Friday, December 23rd, 2011

Liberal capitalists push the idea of individualism and condemn the idea of dividing people in a way that inhibits globalization. If “sexism,” “racism,” “nationalism” or other “isms” are bad for business, they are condemned.

Yet even though Corporate culture trumpets the merits of individualism, in my experience, Corporations still judge books by covers.

It’s not your skills or potential, it’s your experience.
It’s not your loyalty, it’s your work history.
It’s not your interview, it’s the results returned from your background check.
It’s not a good background check, it’s a google search.
It’s not you, it’s your network and who you know.
It’s not what you know, it’s how you look on paper.

You get my drift? I am sure you do.

Corporate culture pushes the idea of not judging the book by a cover when it is convenient. However during other periods of history, the controllers of economic activity (not necessarily Corporations) have used other propaganda to perpetuate institutions such as slavery to the extent it fits the given mode of production. Yet corporations do judge people by things that are very unrelated to their qualifications for the job. They just don’t do it for the same reason as a “racist” or “sexist.”

In fact, corporations are willing to sometimes fill quotas by ethnicity simply for political / public relations reasons. That may not be racism against Blacks, but it is still racial.

Kim Jong Il – Model Figure

Monday, December 19th, 2011

We may write more on this in the future. We feel it is necessarily to at least leave a comment.

Free Media Productions expresses condolences and gratitude for the heroic leader and his Juche Philosophy (see this). A positive force for class struggle and independence.

A sane political philosophy. A man who’s merits are not simply being defamed by the bourgeois media, but who’s merits extend to good political philosophy (unlike some other figures who are resisting imperialism but philosophically unsound).

Problematic Lines on Israel/Palsetine

Thursday, June 2nd, 2011

Cited Post from “admin” of socialist phalanx forum in Editorial

In separating between those who institute colonialist policy (respected Zionists and American spokesmen) and those who may not institute it but still tolerate it while going along with it, important points are made in the cited post. It is not that the people who go along with the agenda of leaders are innocent, but the people who compose the top of society are guiltier than those at the bottom. Pragmatically, is it not worth appealing to people who tolerate a bad idea but do not create the idea? Would one not appeal to a capitalist to drop his/her capitalism? Then one should also appeal to Israelis to drop their imperialism in favor of progressive nationalism and to address the grievances of Palestinians adequately without conceding to either Islam or America. These appeals will be less effective when Israelis have a sort of external enemy to rally against, even though Israeli policies and Zionist leadership before Israel have played a role (along with material conditions and cultural clash) in making Israel’s own enemies.

Even though Israel has successfully oppressed Palestinians and many crimes have been committed, truly radical Muslims who may desire leadership by no means have a proletarian mentality. They would prefer to appeal to theology and identity based arguments to unify Muslims than to actually appeal to secular reasons which could divide the oppressor. They may appeal against Zionism, but not as a theoretical appeal against imperialism and capitalism. They appeal against American imperialism but they use the wrong precepts. Why? Because a true class conscious approach would also lead to the end of Islamic Fundamentalism. While they attack American imperialism, they dream of their own imperialism.

As for more secular Palestinian leaders, if they are of the bourgeoisie, then they merely give lip service to anti-Zionist rhetoric. Let us not forget that Arafat had chances to form a state, but did not go capitalize. Why? If he did, then people would no longer rally around him. The job would be finished. Which brings me to a great realization: supposed radicals in the Palestinian community depend on Zionism just like Republicans depend on talking about abortion. Do Republicans really get rid of abortion when they are the majority, or do they leave it in place so they can campaign against it again?

As noted in the post which is cited, many people are unwilling to adopt a viewpoint which separates between those who promote an ideology and those who go along with it. Bourgeois leaders have a vested interest in keeping Israel as an enemy. The proletariat class of Palestinians could potentially fall into the arms of its own bourgeois class, and if so, the ruling Palestinian class will continue to throw the dog a bone, but it will make sure the bone stays outside of the cage so the dog cannot actually grasp the bone. In other words, the cynical secular bourgeois community within Palestine (as opposed to the Islamic bourgeoisie) will continue to use anti-Zionism as a rallying cry, as opposed to actually making the issue no longer an issue. The end result will not aggravate a struggle against imperialism, but merely give lip service to it. The issue will be used and replayed like a song at a rock concert is played each time a band tours.

A thorough understanding of issues similar to Marx’s analysis is the only real solution. The more people become class conscious, the more people will know how to find solutions to the problems, as opposed to digging them deeper.

Albert Einstein on “Terrorism” within Zionism and Italian Fascism

Sunday, May 29th, 2011

The link
Einstein basically says that anti-imperialism is a good thing, but accuses a faction of the Zionist movement of not being sincere in its anti-imperialism. He then speaks out for the working class, and bashes the Italian Fascist model, which harms workers. This took place in 1948, so at this point the war was already over and Italian Fascism could be examined objectively along with other ideologies, such as German Nazism. At this point, Zionism was starting to gain influence, but nobody saw Zionism as “the movement of the Jewish people” because only recently had it became more popular.

*So Einstein had some political views similar to mine right now. Granted I admired fascism for a while, but unlike the guy Einstein is bashing, I legitimately changed my viewpoints. The problem with fascism is not that it is authoritarian, but it misdirects class antagonisms so that the ruling order can continue to exploit people. In Italians fascism, problems of class conflict are “addressed” by making the working class adopt ideologies and appeals to “duty, honor, etc.” As Marx noted, ideologies cause people to act against their own economic self-interest. That is a very broad notation, but it applies in this circumstance.

Socialist Phalanx – Budding Website / Community

Wednesday, May 25th, 2011

The Website
The forum

It is for both progressive nationalists and for revolutionary socialists (Have they read my post?). By the way, the two views are not contradictory because nationalism and internationalism are not contradictory, just different levels in a hierarchy. Since my views on race are very polished and well spoken, and cannot be seen as crude or hateful, I believe it is a good fit.

I like the way they differentiated “progressive nationalism” from other viewpoints. This website has the potential to be a good website and host a good community. Here are their membership rules:

*Who may join?

Anyone who is either a revolutionary socialist or a progressive nationalist.

*What is ‘progressive nationalism’?

Progressive nationalism is a unique variety of nationalism that is both thoroughly anti-capitalist and anti-reactionary. As such, this variety of nationalism inherently rejects the theories and tendencies associated with most other expressions thereof — such as ethnic chauvinism, economic exploitation, and imperialism.

*What is ‘revolutionary socialism’?

For purposes of this forum, revolutionary socialism is defined as a socialist tendency based upon a fundamental commitment to the complete abolition of capitalism — this being contrasted to conventional Social Democratic and corporativist models, based upon the partial or complete maintenance of the capitalist mode of production — and the construction of a workers’ state.

Note: In this context, no distinction is drawn between literal revolutionary socialists, Blaquists/Vanguardists, democratic socialists, anarchists, etc.

*Is this a racist website?

No. This forum does not tolerate animus towards individuals based upon their race or ethnicity. Moreover, it does not tolerate hostility towards individuals based upon their sex, religious affiliation, etc.

*Is this a fascist website?

No. None of the ideologies found within the heterogeneous construct referred to as ‘fascism’ objectively meet the standards of revolutionary socialism or progressive nationalism.

*What is the ‘Revolutionary Syndicalist Front’?

The Revolutionary Syndicalist Front (RSF) is an international organization created for the purpose of networking individual radicals and political groups who adhere to the principles of Revolutionary Syndicalism.

*What is the Executive Committee of the Revolutionary Syndicalist Front?

See the ECRSF website. Its function within the Socialist Phalanx is purely administrative.

*Do you have to be in the RSF to join the Socialist Phalanx?

Absolutely not.

Sound Political Theory and Antisemitism

Wednesday, May 18th, 2011

I showed, in previous articles, how leaders of some fringe movements use antisemitism as an attempt to confuse the followers that they wish they had. They do have a few followers however, and for people who buy into what their leaders tell them, it gives answers. The wrong answers, but they feel like the right answers. In this article, I will explain why antisemitism is incorrect not in an Ad hominem sense of being bourgeois and not in an ethical sense, but grounded in deep political theory.

I should note that a defense against anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and obsession with the national background of Jews is not a defense of Jewish extremism or imperialistic iterations of Zionism. Neither is it an attack on modern science in favor of Orthodox religion. Rather, the aim of this article is to explain the secular causes of our current society, the theoretical deviations of antisemites and the differences between them.

First off, hardcore antisemites view themselves as knowing something that the rest of the people are too weak to know. Analogously, one cannot give a rated “R” movie to a twelve year old. It may be true that the average person will not even touch issues involving Jews, due to the emotional overtones of the issue, however this does not mean that fringe antisemites know what they are talking about. People who blame the Jews as the primary cause for racial dispossession and imperialism in the middle east do not understand the difference between opportunism and cause / effect.

Someone who sees things in terms of political opportunism only sees things in terms of platforms. “I’m pro-gun, pro-life, anti-market, anti-immigration” etc. “You have the same positions, so we have something in common.” But that is just opportunism, it does not mean we fundamentally see things the same way. And it is only a matter of opportunism that the current mode of production – imperial capitalism – happens to be good for liberal warmongering Jews (not ALL Jews. Jews as a group were more anti Iraq war than the national average). There are plenty of opportunists who benefit from the current order. However, opportunists do not control democratic opinion and opportunists do not create the material conditions that lead to their delightful benefit.

As I noted earlier, systems of government form as reactions to material conditions and economic circumstances which cause antagonisms which are managed by leaders in different directions. Tzarist despotism created conditions which caused the Russian revolution. The loss of world war I and the great depression set the stage for Nazism. Conflicting systems of economics between the slave-driven agrarian South and the industrialized North caused the Civil War. British imperialism created antagonisms that caused the American revolution and its two-party Oligopoly.

As technology and economics evolve, sometimes the systems of government do not immediately change with it, but instead hold on to nostalgia, or “the way things used to be.” Take the confederacy. The people may be ready to abolish slavery and/or advance the social conditions of Women, because of an economy that is structured differently as modes of production change, but the Government may react, or be “reactionary,” and oppose this. What we have in fringe white nationalist groups are people who are reacting to this conflict. They want to keep the society the way they think it used to be, but the material and technological conditions are changing. A class conscious nationalist, unlike a reactionary nationalist, understands that material conditions and nationalism must be designed to intersect in a future manor, not as they did in the past. But a reactionary feels the pain and tension between the customs of the past and the material conditions of the present, and he/she tries to understand and explain this without actually grasping a materialist analysis. People like this feel their society is being taken away, and they do not really understand “why” in a macroeconomic sense.

Blaming the Jew is the glue that holds together the broken political theory of the followers of the fringe movement, but for the leaders, blaming the Jew is “scapegoating,” or a cynical ploy. It works because some individual Jews indeed are opportunists who indeed fully support the current order. But the answer is still a shallow answer. It should be noted that the REAL leaders, not the fringe leaders but the people with power in society, also benefit, because these movements never get very far.

In summary, antisemites see Jews in power positions and see opportunists who think the current order is good for themselves, and therefore think that the current order was created by Jews, instead of by the material conditions that lead to it. In any system of government, there are opportunists and profiteers, and people who advocate a specific agenda, but fundamentally the opportunists are like people who are merely riding a wave.

Yes Israel has some influence on America, but that is only because the two countries are linked, and it is a “reward” given to Israel for cooperating with America’s globalist agenda and advancing it in the Middle East while oppressing Arabs who resist. Yes some individual Jews may support immigration, but free market liberal capitalism is what drives it and sets the conditions for the political legislation which enables it. Yes some Jews may profit from the system, but contingent forces, ideas and the reactions to them create the system. Fundamentally, “follower” antisemites do not understand the clash of the times and blame the Jews to explain it.

False Dichotomies : Culture, Economics, Thinking

Wednesday, May 4th, 2011

Examples of false dichotomies : “I’m a traditionalists, therefore I’m not a socialist” or “I’m an individualist, therefore I do not care about culture.”

People with flawed ideology think in terms of false dichotomies. “I’m this, so I’m not that.” Some dichotomies are true, but others are not true. Radical traditionalists pride themselves in trying to keep society exactly the same. In contrast, coffee shop Trotskyists try to implement socialism with no regard for material conditions and culture and capitalism by default does not have any regard for culture. These groups confine their thinking to certain boxes and accept viewpoints in a “package form” in which the entire package must either be accepted or rejected.

I believe it is possible to be raveled in the culture and history of your nation and still be an economic progressive at the same time. I believe it is possible to have the social confidence to feel integrated into society and still think freely. In short, false dichotomies must be eliminated between independent thought, culture and progressive economics. These forces do not have to work against each other.

You do not have to feel alienated to think freely. You do not have to wreck a nation to modernize it.

Internationalism vs. Decay

Tuesday, April 26th, 2011

Most Marxists say they stand for internationalism.

That means that Marxists stand for nations. Because without nations, you can’t have internationalism. Without organs, you can’t have a human body. Without different types of plants, you can’t have an ecosystem.

Individualism and internationalism are not the same thing. Liberalism and internationalism are not the same thing.

The struggle for class conscious ideology is worldwide. It is capitalism, however, that attempts to “melt” and alienate people away from collective identities, not Marxism.

States, Nations and Classes

Tuesday, April 19th, 2011

A state has a class nature. A state is tied to a mode of production. When Communist revolutions occur, most often the state is replaced with a new state. This difference between a proletarian and bourgeois state was discussed in the previous article.

A nation however does not have a class nature. Stalin actually defined a nation very well. Stalin also pointed out that nations became relevant during the demise of feudalism and rise of capitalism. Stalin, however, seemed to be struck by the impression that nations came into existence because of the mode of production, whereas I argue that nations always existed and just happened to realize it. Yes, nations were marked out with the demise of feudalism and rise of capitalism, but this was just a matter of consciousness. The logical partitions of humanity already exited and then these logical partitions just became aware of themselves. Of course perfection does not exist, but this is the general rule.

Capitalism has many problems, but one good thing that happened as a result of capitalism was that nations were realized that were relatively logical in their arrangements. This is the difference between the development towards larger communities, which turned feudal societies into nations in the past and the globalization that is occurring today. The threat of high technology did not exist to push globalization to the point of assembling humanity in a way that it should not be assembled.

In crude terms, a Japanese nation makes sense. Canada-Mexico-US as a nation does not make sense. How thankful we should be that high technology did not exist at this crucial point of history, as to pervert and distort the coming to fruition of national identities! But now this high technology exists and now capitalist seek to assemble humanity in an illogical way.

Vulgar Marxism vs. Progressive Nationalism

Wednesday, April 13th, 2011

“I am not a Marxist.” – Karl Marx

“There is no knowledge that is not power.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

A “vulgar Marxist” holds that man has no free will and economic forces just happen in succession. To a vulgar Marxist, ideas do not really change society. Ideas are just an illusion of free will. Scholars debate the extent to which Marx (and Engels) believed this. I am trying to settle the historical question myself, but I do not believe Marx was quite this rigid. It makes no difference in terms of my own viewpoints, but it is an interesting historical question.

I personally believe that economic forces are a reality, just like genetic forces, national forces, cultural forces, religious forces and ethnic forces. To an extent these forces are intertwined with each other. For instance Thomas Hobbes and John Locke argued that the social contract was created by man to create Governments, because the nature of wilderness caused life to be “brutish and short.” This means that man formed his Government in reaction to material conditions. However for every problem, there are multiple solutions, and even I believe Marx was too confident that society would move in a particular direction or that society would even address the problems. That being said, I do not believe Marx was as linear as he is portrayed both by ultra-Orthodox “Marxists” and by anti-Communists.

While the forces iterated in the above paragraph are relevant to my worldview, I believe that when man becomes more conscious of these forces, he or she actually increases in power and control and increases in ability to engineer society. This is a very pragmatic way of thinking, but also a way of thinking which argues that man subjects nature.  Yet I am arguing that if man is unaware of these forces, then man has less power.   Hitler was very opposed to this thinking, arguing instead that man is subject to laws of nature. In contrast to Hitler, Mussolini would agree with it arguing that the state (a literate political class) creates the society. Anton Lavey (a satanist thinker) would agree with this thinking as well.

Lenin seemed to reject vulgar Marxism as well. Lenin argued that the party must guide the working class. “Democratic centralism” is a rejection of vulgar Marxism. It contradicts the idea that revolution happens on its own.

Stalin as well rejected this viewpoint. He was quoted as saying “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” If only economics mattered, and ideology did not, then Stalin would not have made this statement.

So we can conclude that Stalin, Lenin and future Marxists revised vulgar Marxism. The question is did Marx and Engels believe it? I do not think so personally.

SEO Powered By SEOPressor